You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

RichardKennaway comments on Eliezer's Sequences and Mainstream Academia - Less Wrong Discussion

99 Post author: lukeprog 15 September 2012 12:32AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (153)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 18 September 2012 10:46:04AM *  2 points [-]

So, yeah, I don't think you'd encourage anyone to read anything by calling it "not original".

I don't know anything about the friends ciphergoth is attempting to reach, but I observe that in religion, "original" would be the greater turn-off. In religion, every innovation is heretical, because it is an innovation. To be accepted it must be presented as "not original", either because it is exactly in accordance with official doctrine, or because it is a return to the true religion that the official doctrine has departed from. It is rare for a religion to successfully introduce a new prophet with the power to sweep away the old, and even then ("I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil") the pretence is maintained that no such thing has happened.

Comment author: ryjm 18 September 2012 02:20:30PM 0 points [-]

Someone who doesn't want to read science-y stuff because they have that kind of mindset is not going to suddenly become curious when someone tells them it's based on science-y stuff from less than 30 years ago.

I like to think of it temporally; that religion is much like rationalists facing the wrong direction. Both occasionally look over their shoulders to confirm their beliefs (although with theists it's more like throwing a homunculus into the distant past and using that for eyes), while most of the time the things we really care about and find exciting are in front of us. Original vs unoriginal with respect to modern thought is of no practical interest to someone with the "every innovation is heretical" mindset unless it is completely within their usual line of sight - heretical is code for "I don't want to keep looking over my shoulder", not "I hate the original on principle". So unless you put that "original" encouragement thousands of years ago where they can see it, where it's a matter of one in front and one behind, the distinction between which is the greater turn-off is not going to matter, or bait anyone into turning around - there is nothing in their usually observed world to relate it to.